https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791800 Exemption under Section 54 was held not to be denied merely because the assessee failed to deposit the unutilised capital gain in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme by the due date under Section 139(1), where the new residential house was purchased within the statutory period. The deposit requirement was treated as a procedural condition for regulating unutilised gains, not as a substantive bar overriding timely investment in a qualifying residential house. As a beneficial provision, Section 54 was applied on the basis of substantive compliance, and denial for a procedural lapse was held unsustainable. en-us Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2026 08:40:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791800 Exemption under Section 54 was held not to be denied merely because the assessee failed to deposit the unutilised capital gain in the Capital Gain Deposit Scheme by the due date under Section 139(1), where the new residential house was purchased within the statutory period. The deposit requirement was treated as a procedural condition for regulating unutilised gains, not as a substantive bar overriding timely investment in a qualifying residential house. As a beneficial provision, Section 54 was applied on the basis of substantive compliance, and denial for a procedural lapse was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791800